Top Banner

of 24

Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

Apr 14, 2018

Download

Documents

Oxfam
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    1/24

    OXFAM BRIEFING NOTE 2 OCTOBER 2013

    www.oxfam.org

    Tractors on a sugar cane plantation which occupies ancestral land of the indigenous group Guarani-Kaiow. The displaced community nowlives in a temporary camp next to the land on the side of Highway BR-163, Mato Grosso do Sul. Photo: Tatiana Cardeal

    SUGAR RUSHLand rights and the supply chains of the biggest food andbeverage companies

    This paper sets out how one crop sugar has been driving large-

    scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the expense of small-scale

    food producers and their families. At least 4m hectares of land have

    been acquired for sugar production in 100 large-scale land deals since

    2000, although given the lack of transparency around such deals, the

    area is likely to be much greater. In some cases, these acquisitions

    have been linked to human rights violations, loss of livelihoods, and

    hunger for small-scale food producers and their families. Major food

    and beverage companies rarely own land, but they depend on it for the

    crops they buy, including sugar. These companies must urgently

    recognize this problem, and take steps to ensure that land rights

    violations and conflicts are not part of their supply chains.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    2/24

    2

    1INTRODUCTION

    Since 2000, nearly 800 large-scale land deals covering 33m hectares

    globally an area four times the size of Portugal have been recorded.1

    This land has shifted from smallholder production, local community use, or

    the provision of important ecosystem services, to commercial use, driven inpart by the rising demand for large-scale crops like sugar.

    Governments, businesses, and financial investors must respect and uphold

    the rights of communities and seek their informed consent before engaging

    in any land-related activities.2 While food and beverage companies are not

    usually direct land holders, they are collectively major buyers of commodities

    grown on large plantations, often in countries plagued by land rights

    violations. Food and beverage companies must urgently recognize these

    issues, and take steps to ensure that land rights violations and conflicts are

    not part of their supply chains.

    BEHIND THE BRANDS

    In 2013, Oxfam launched Behind the Brands, part of its GROW campaign.3

    GROW calls on governments and companies to build a better food system:

    one that sustainably feeds a growing population and empowers poor people

    to earn a living, feed their families, and thrive. Behind the Brands tracks ten

    of the worlds biggest food and beverage companies and assesses their

    policies and commitment in helping to create this system. These 'Big 10' are

    Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg,Mars, Mondelez International, Nestl, PepsiCo, and Unilever. Collectively,

    they generate revenues of over $1.1bn a day.4

    The Behind the Brands scorecard5ranks the Big 10s policies and

    commitments in seven critical areas: women, small-scale farmers, farm

    workers, water, land, climate change, and transparency. Of these themes,

    land is the one on which the companies score worst. The Big 10 lack

    adequate policies to ensure that local communities land rights are protected

    along their supply chains, and none has declared zero tolerance of land

    grabbing (see Box 7 below).

    Access to land for small-scale farmers is a pivotal part of a better food

    system. Access to common lands provides communities with water, fodder,

    fruits, nuts, and other resources often vitally important for women to feed

    themselves and their families. This paper sets out how one crop sugar

    has been driving large-scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the

    expense of small-scale food producers and their families.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    3/24

    3

    2 SUGAR AND LAND RIGHTS

    The 2008 boom in food prices is widely recognized as having triggered a

    surge in investor interest in agriculture: from mid-2008 to 2009 the number of

    reported land deals rocketed by around 200 per cent.6 Investment in

    agriculture, moreover, is desperately needed. Agriculture is vital for foodsecurity, and is the crucial growth spark for many developing economies.7

    Private investment can contribute to inclusive growth, environmental

    sustainability, and poverty reduction.

    However, too often land investments have led to human rights violations,

    loss of livelihoods, alienation of peoples spiritual and cultural ties to land,

    and sometimes violence and destruction of property and crops. Oxfam has

    called this development in reverse.8 Women living in poverty are at

    particular risk,9 since they are less likely than men to have land titles or a say

    in decisions affecting their access to land.10 For communities and small-scale

    farmers, loss of land is disastrous for livelihoods and food security.

    Since 2000, nearly 800 large-scale land deals by foreign investors, covering

    33m ha globally, have been recorded, as well as 255 deals by domestic

    investors.11 Owing to the lack of transparency around land acquisitions,

    however, and the under-representation of domestic deals, the real number

    could be much higher. Nearly half of these deals have taken place in

    Africa,12 and many in countries with weak land governance13 or with

    alarming levels of hunger, including Mozambique, Sudan, and Zambia.14

    The five countries with the largest total land acquisitions by area, covering a

    total of over 16m ha, are South Sudan, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia,Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique.15 Cambodia is the

    country that has the most reported deals, with 104 concluded since 2000.16

    While struggles over land are not new, they have taken on renewed

    importance as pressure on land increases. Investors,17 driven by rising food

    and fuel prices and by growing consumer demand, have rapidly expanded

    large-scale crop production. Small-scale producers are sidelined as the

    market offers companies huge rewards for exploiting land, but without

    safeguarding peoples rights.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    4/24

    4

    Box 1: What makes a land acquisition a land grab?

    Large-scale18

    land acquisitions become land grabs when they do one or more

    of the following:

    Violate human rights, particularly those of women;

    Flout the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC see Box 6below);

    Take place without or disregard a thorough assessment of social, economic,

    and environmental impacts;

    Avoid transparent contracts with clear and binding commitments on

    employment and benefit sharing;

    Eschew democratic planning, independent oversight, and meaningful

    participation.19

    SUGAR-COATED CONFLICTMany large-scale land acquisitions involve commodities that are heavily

    used to produce both food and biofuels: sugar, soy, and palm oil.20 These

    are predominately monoculture crops produced for markets that operate on

    large volumes and small margins. Collectively they use 150m ha of land21

    and have been linked to more than 380 large-scale land acquisitions since

    2000.22

    This report focuses on sugar as both a land-intensive crop and a key

    ingredient for the food industry, with 51 per cent of all sugar produced being

    used in processed foods such as soft drinks, confectionery, baked goods,and ice cream.23 Sugar is produced on 31m hectares of land globally24 an

    area the size of Italy with at least 4m ha linked to 100 large-scale land

    deals since 2000,25 though the area is likely be much greater since not all

    recorded deals include information on land size.

    In contrast, palm oil, while also a key food ingredient that has been strongly

    linked to large-scale land acquisitions, only uses half as much land as sugar.

    Soy is the biggest land user by far,26 but just 16 per cent of soy is used

    directly in food products.27

    In the period between 1961 and 2009, global sugar and sweetenerconsumption more than doubled.28 Looking forward, in the decade to 2020,

    demand for sugar is set to rise by a further 25 per cent.29 This will put

    considerable additional pressure on land, which can contribute to conflicts

    between communities and plantation companies.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    5/24

    5

    Figure 1: Sugar, soy and palm oil: land footprint in 201230

    Note: Sugar production: the 51% Includes only the percentage used in food manufacturing. An additional25% is used for grocery wholesale and other food uses.

    Soy production: includes percentage used for soy f lour, proteins and edible oil; excludes soy used foranimal feed.

    Sources: IBISWorld (2012) Global Sugar Manufacturing, IBISWorld Industry Report C1115-GL, p.15; S.Murphy, D. Birch, and J. Clapp (2012) Cereal Secrets: The world's larges t grain traders and global

    agriculture, Oxford: Oxfam.

    Box 2: Sugar and land in Sre Ambel, Cambodia

    In 2006, land clearance began in Sre Ambel district in Cambodia for a sugar

    plantation of 18,057.32 ha by two companies,31

    both of which are 70-percent

    owned by Thai sugar giant Khon Kaen Sugar Co Ltd (KSL). Nearly 500 familiesfrom three villages lost land in the clearing operations, according to the

    communitys legal representatives at the Community Legal Education Center

    (CLEC).32

    Community members protested against the clearance, stating they had worked

    the land since at least 1999, and some of them since as far back as 1979.33

    They say that they were not consulted about the deal and that during protests

    they were threatened and have had their movements curtailed. While some

    families have accepted compensation, 1,365 ha of land are still disputed by 200

    families.

    For seven years, the conflict has been unresolved, and families who had once

    made a decent living from the land are struggling to survive without their former

    income from farming rice, fruit, corn, and cashew nuts. They also claim that

    livestock straying onto plantation land have been shot or confiscated.34

    Many

    can no longer send their children to school.

    Representatives of the plantation claim that they paid compensation (which

    they also regard as consultation), and insist that the company pays the

    Cambodian government $20,000 per year.35

    The company met the community

    in March 2013 and said that KSL would return the disputed land.36

    Since the

    meeting, there has been no indication that KSL has pursued discussions with

    the Cambodian government to resolve the situation.

    The Government of Cambodia states that the Economic Land Concessions

    were granted in accordance with the legal framework and that only 13 families

    have not been compensated due to their inability to provide documentation or

    legal papers to prove they owned the land.37

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    6/24

    6

    KSL has reportedly supplied London-based Tate & Lyle Sugars from its

    plantations in Sre Ambel. Tate & Lyle Sugars was incorporated in July 2010

    and acquired the European sugar business of Tate & Lyle plc in September

    2010. It is owned by American Sugar Holdings, the worlds largest vertically

    integrated cane sugar refiner.38 The company says that it has no existing

    contract with KSL, though acknowledges that it previously received two

    shipments from the company, in May 2011 and June 2012.39

    It also maintains

    that it has undertaken a comprehensive due diligence process and full

    independent audit, and concludes that KSL acquired its stake in the land

    legitimately.40

    In April 2013, the 200 families filed a case against both Tate & Lyle plc41 and

    Tate & Lyle Sugars in the UK High Court.42 They also filed a complaint against

    Tate & Lyle Sugars through the grievance mechanism of Bonsucro, an industry

    initiative that aims to reduce the negative impacts of sugar production. In July

    2013, the company was suspended from its membership of Bonsucro (see Box

    5).

    Tate & Lyle Sugars states that it is one of only two major sugar suppliers in the

    UK and that as such it supplies many of the major food and beverage

    companies in Europe. Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo confirmed that sugar sold

    by Tate & Lyle Sugars is used in its products and purchased by its bottlers.43

    Sources: Oxfam interviews with community members, social organizations, and plantation

    representatives; Equitable Cambodia; Community Legal Education Center (CLEC )44

    The three examples in Boxes 24 describe serious conflicts related to sugar,

    and are emblematic of the types of struggle taking place around the globe.

    One is from Cambodia a country that has experienced a high number of

    large-scale land acquisitions in recent years. The other two are from Brazil,

    the worlds largest sugar producer. Brazil accounts for 20 per cent of the

    worlds supply of sugar and close to 50 per cent of all exports a figure that

    is forecast to rise to 60 per cent by 2020.45 Nearly 10m ha of land in Brazil is

    devoted to sugar production, accounting for one-eighth of the countrys

    arable land.46

    Brazil exemplifies those countries that are experiencing an increase in land

    conflicts and violence during a period of rapid expansion of large-scale

    agriculture. Many conflicts are linked to indigenous and other community

    land rights.47 In 2008, Brazil saw 751 land conflicts, a figure which rose to

    1,067 in 2012, when 36 deaths and 77 attempted murders were linked to

    conflicts. While certainly not all of these disputes are linked to sugar, keysugar-producing states such as Mato Grosso do Sul, Pernambuco, and So

    Paulo have experienced high levels of conflict.48 These include not only

    recent land deals, but also longer-running and complex disputes linked to

    unclear and contested land tenure. In these conditions, it is usually those

    with power and political connections who win out.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    7/24

    7

    Figure 2: Sugar cane cultivation in Brazil 200010, showing land conflicts in

    2012

    Sources: UNICA Data http://www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-area-ibge.php?idMn=33&tipoHistorico=5;

    CIMI (2012) Violncia contra os povos indgenas no Brasil 2012,http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/viol/viol2012.pdf;FUNAI, InstitutoSocioambiental (ISA), and the Pastoral LandCommission (CPT).

    Box 3: Indigenous land rights in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil

    Indigenous peoples and Quilombolas49

    represent more than one-quarter of

    those affected by land conflicts in Brazil, many of which occur in Mato Grosso

    do Sul.50 For decades, indigenous peoples in the state have been fighting to

    reclaim their ancestral lands, while agribusiness expansion has seen much of

    the land converted to soy, cattle, corn, and sugar cane farms. Sugar cane

    cultivation more than tripled between 2007 and 2012, jumping from 180,000 to

    570,000 ha.51

    In Ponta Por, a municipality in the south of the state, two new sugar mills

    52

    started up in 2008, including Monteverde now owned by global commodity

    trader Bunge. As a result, a number of farms started producing sugar cane to

    supply the mills, including in Jatayvary, an area claimed by indigenous

    communities. Bunges Monteverde mill currently buys sugar cane from five

    farms located in Jatayvary.53

    In the 1960s, the indigenous Guarani-Kaiow communities in Jatayvary started

    trying to formalize their rights to this land. Despite suffering violence, being

    moved off the land for four years in the mid-1990s, and facing intimidation by

    farmers on their return,54

    in 2004 they succeeded in having Jatayvary

    recognized as indigenous land by the relevant federal agency, FUNAI. This

    started a four-step administrative process of land demarcation. In 2011, the

    second step was completed when 8,800 ha of land was declared by the

    Minister of Justice, setting the boundaries and recognizing the Guarani-

    Kaiows rights.55

    http://www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-area-ibge.php?idMn=33&tipoHistorico=5http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/viol/viol2012.pdfhttp://www.cimi.org.br/pub/viol/viol2012.pdfhttp://www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-area-ibge.php?idMn=33&tipoHistorico=5
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    8/24

    8

    Given that the demarcation process was underway, Bunge was requested by a

    federal prosecutor to stop sourcing sugar cane from Jatayvary, but the

    company has insisted56

    that it will only consider breaking its contracts once the

    land is fully demarcated, and officially signed by the President. Bunge also

    asserts that the sourcing contracts were entered into by the previous owners of

    the Monteverde mill and should be honoured. Although the company indicated

    that it would not renew contracts as they expired in 2013, it has subsequently

    indicated that it will be 2014 before the contracts run out.57

    Living so close to the sugar plantations has brought devastating social and

    environmental impacts for 60 families. These include exposure to pesticides

    and to smoke from the burning of sugar cane straw, pollution of waterways, and

    pollution and risks from the intense vehicle traffic that transports sugar cane,

    and which has resulted in the death of one community member.58

    Bunge is a powerful actor in the global sugar industry. It is one of the top three

    sugar cane millers in Brazil and a top-three sugar merchant globally.59

    According to Coca-Cola, the company does not source from the Monteverde

    mill, but does source sugar from other Bunge operations in Brazil.

    Sources: Oxfam interviews; Reprter Brasil; Survival International.

    Sugar production and consumption also have significant impacts beyond

    land conflicts,60 including intensive water use that can be a drain on

    underground aquifers, the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the dumping

    of effluents in rivers by poorly run refineries. This adversely affects

    communities health and drinking water, and causes the death of fish that

    they rely on for food and livelihoods. In addition, excessive sugar

    consumption has been linked to obesity and related health problems in the

    developed world, which are also rapidly spreading in developing countries,

    as the food manufacturing industry expands the reach of processed foodsand soft drinks.61

    THE BIG 10 AND SUGAR

    The Big 10 companies all source sugar from various suppliers. They use it to

    produce soft drinks, confectionery, bakery goods, and ice cream products.

    For most of the companies, their lack of transparency makes it impossible to

    know exactly how much sugar they use only Danone,62 Unilever,63 and

    ABF (in its sugar operations see below), disclose their sourcing or

    production volumes. Coca-Cola is the worlds largest buyer of sugar64 andcontrols 25 per cent of the global soft drinks market.65 PepsiCo trails just

    behind, controlling 18 per cent of the soft drinks market.66 Coca-Cola uses

    sugar in products such as Coca-Cola, Sprite, Fanta, Dr Pepper,

    vitaminwater, energy drinks, and fruit/juice drinks, while PepsiCo has a

    similar line-up including Pepsi-Cola, Mountain Dew, and Mirinda, to name

    just a few.

    While the soft drink giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are major sugar buyers,

    another of the Big 10 is one of the worlds biggest sugar producers ABF.

    ABF owns British Sugar and Azucarera in Spain and has a majority stake in

    Illovo Sugar, Africas largest sugar company. ABF produces 4.3 percent of

    the global sugar supply and has the capacity to produce 5.5m tonnes of

    sugar globally each year.67

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    9/24

    9

    Over half of ABFs sugar comes from sugar cane,68 most of it produced by

    Illovo Sugar in six African countries: Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa,

    Swaziland, Tanzania, and Zambia. In three countries Malawi, Mali and

    Zambia Illovo Sugar has been linked in media reports to land conflicts.69

    The rest of ABFs sugar comes from sugar beet grown in Europe and

    China.70 ABF sells sugar to the food manufacturing sector, as well as to

    consumers through its Silver Spoon (made from sugar beet) and Billingtons

    (made from sugar cane) brands. It also uses sugar in its own manufacturing

    businesses for products such as Jordans cereals and Ovaltine drinks.

    Box 4: Sugar pressures and violence in Pernambuco, Brazil

    On the coast of the impoverished north-eastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco,

    a group of fishing families are fighting to return to their island home in the

    Sirinham River estuary. In 1998, 53 families were expelled from the mangrove

    they inhabited and upon which they had relied for food and income for

    decades, due to the encroachment of the Usina Trapiche71 sugar refinery.

    While the company argues that the islanders were living in sub-humanconditions and were destroying the mangrove,

    72social organizations such as

    the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) and the Fishermens Pastorate are

    fighting alongside the islanders to secure their return to the estuary.

    Central to the conflict is the fight for control of state land where the fishing

    community had lived since 1914.73 In 1998, when Usina Trapiche was bought

    by the Serra Grande company, it began to petition the state for rights over the

    estuary and islands.74

    According to the islanders and their supporters, without

    any provocation, Trapiche began destroying their homes and small farms, and

    they received threats of further destruction and violence if they did not leave the

    islands.75 As recently as 2012, employees of the plant have been accused of

    burning the huts of fishermen, which were rebuilt and then burned again.76

    Trapiche says that it is protecting the mangrove. However, the company has

    also been fined for polluting the river, impacting the environment, and killing

    fish that the displaced families and other fishing communities depend on.77

    The families were relocated by Trapiche to the town of Sirinham, which has

    given them access to electricity, water, sanitation, and schooling.78 However,

    the move has also brought great hardship. The families live in a favela (slum),

    and have either not been able to continue fishing or are forced to travel great

    distances back to the mangrove.79

    Life in town is costly, and having lost their

    land, some families have to seek wage labour to pay for food and other

    essentials often cutting cane for Trapiche itself.

    Initially the courts upheld the families rights to live in the estuary, but this

    decision was overturned in 2002. Subsequently, the families have sought to

    have the area designated as a federal extractive reserve (Resex), which would

    reverse the companys rights over the estuary and open up the possibility of the

    families returning home. In 2009, they were granted the right to the reserve, but

    this has not been endorsed by the state, which some attribute to the political

    influence of Trapiche and the sugar industry.80

    Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo confirmed that sugar produced by Usina

    Trapiche is used in their products.81

    Sources: Oxfam interviews; Pastoral Land Commission; L. Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative

    for Whom? Sugarcane ethanol production and rural livelihoods in Northeast Brazil, WashingtonDC: American University.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    10/24

    10

    Given their important roles as both sugar producers and buyers with globally

    popular brands, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and ABF bear particular responsibility

    for addressing land conflicts in the sugar industry. While these companies

    may have neither legal responsibility for, nor direct control over, such

    conflicts, as major purchasers they are subject to international human rights

    norms and standards and must take responsibility for addressing land rights

    in their supply chains. For ABF's directly owned sugar operations, this

    responsibility is all the greater.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    11/24

    11

    3 SCORECARD RESULTS:LACK OF COMMITTMENT TOLAND RIGHTS

    The examples of land conflict described in the previous section all involve

    companies that supply the food manufacturing industry. Do the Big 10 have

    adequate measures in place to identify, prevent, and address land conflicts

    in their supply chains? Given that, of the seven areas in the scorecard,82 land

    is the one in which the Big 10 perform the worst, the answer has to be no.

    Figure 3: Behind the Brands scorecard results for land, 2013

    This scorecard was produced in August 2013. To see the complete scorecard, go tohttp://oxfam.org/behindthebrands

    The Behind the Brand scorecard assesses companies policy commitments

    in relation to land rights and the prevention of land grabbing in four areas:

    awareness, knowledge, commitments, and supply chain management. It

    considers both environmental issues that are linked to land use, such as

    deforestation and biodiversity, and the social and human rights issues

    related to land tenure already described. The results paint a disappointingpicture.

    http://oxfam.org/behindthebrandshttp://oxfam.org/behindthebrands
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    12/24

    12

    On the positive side, the companies gain credit for policies, commitments,

    and management of biodiversity and deforestation impacts in their supply

    chains. However, the scorecard reveals, by and large, that they have a poor

    awareness of key social issues. Most fail to publish where or from whom

    they source many land-intensive commodities, such as sugar cane, soy, and

    palm oil.83 None of the companies has made a clear statement that land

    grabs will not be tolerated in its supply chains. Commitments to

    implementing policies to remedy land conflicts, prevent future land rights

    violations, and adopt and implement industry standards in the supply chain

    are also either limited or non-existent.

    Box 5: Bonsucro

    The scorecard considers company commitments to production standards

    aimed at improving sustainability. These include the Roundtable on Sustainable

    Palm Oil (RSPO), the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), and Bonsucro

    a multi-stakeholder effort to reduce negative social and environmental

    impacts in sugar production. While neither membership, nor certification,guarantee that a company is doing the right thing, these are important industry-

    wide initiatives, and can support companies efforts to improve.

    Coca-Cola was a co-founder of Bonsucro, and as of 2011 it was sourcing

    130,000 tonnes of certified sugar. General Mills, Mondelez International,

    Nestl, PepsiCo, and Unilever are also members. The other four food

    companies have not joined Bonsucro, or have left, in the case of British Sugar,

    a part of AB Sugar and subsidiary of ABF.84

    Bonsucro recognizes communities rights to land and supports impact

    assessments, grievance and dispute mechanisms, and active participation by

    local stakeholders. It also requires documented evidence that affected

    communities have given their free, prior, and informed consent for land use andhave received proper compensation though it is weak on providing guidance

    on FPIC implementation. To date, nearly 3m tonnes of sugar have been

    Bonsucro-certified (two per cent of total production).85

    Tate & Lyle Sugars, formerly a member of the initiative, was suspended by the

    Bonsucro board on 8 July 2013 for failing to demonstrate adequate progress

    within a reasonable time-scale towards meeting the requirements of the Board

    to provide information regarding a complaint made against the company

    [related to the Sre Ambel case], nor adequately explaining why these

    requirements could not be met.86

    ABF, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo score poor or very poor,87 demonstrating

    little awareness of the issues or potential risks to either affected communities

    or to their own businesses. Although Coca-Cola was a co-founder of

    Bonsucro (see Box 5), overall the company lacks policies and commitments

    of its own to identify, prevent, and address potential land rights violations.

    Nestl is the one company showing some progress scoring 5 out of 10 on

    land. Although Nestl fails to commit to zero tolerance on land grabbing, it

    has adopted new sourcing guidelines to become the first of the Big 10 to fully

    support the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous and local

    communities in its supplier guidelines, used for the sourcing of sugar, soy,palm oil, and other commodities.88

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    13/24

    13

    Overall, however, the sector is not doing enough. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and

    ABF, along with the other companies in the Big 10, must take urgent steps to

    ensure that the types of conflicts described above form no part of their

    supply chains for sugar and other land-intensive commodities such as soy

    and palm oil. Oxfam is already in dialogue with Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and

    ABF and has asked them about the details of the cases referenced in this

    report. These companies have a responsibility (in collaboration with

    suppliers and other relevant stakeholders) to investigate and take measures

    to address the concerns of affected communities.

    Box 6: Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)89

    FPIC requires that indigenous peoples and local communities are adequately

    informed90

    about projects taking place on their land, and must be given the

    opportunity to approve (or reject) projects before they start and also at certain

    stages during project development. This includes participation in setting the

    terms and conditions that address the economic, social, and environmental

    impacts of all phases of the project.To date, international law has only recognized the right to FPIC with respect to

    indigenous peoples. However, it represents best practice in sustainable

    development and should therefore guide company practice when consulting

    and negotiating with all affected communities.

    Women, of course, have equal rights, including to participate in community

    decision-making processes, to benefit from development, and to be safe from

    the potentially negative impacts of land acquisitions.91

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    14/24

    14

    4 CREATING A JUST FOODSYSTEM

    WHY THE BIG 10 SHOULD LEADAround the world, communities are suffering serious human rights violations,

    loss of livelihoods, and hunger as a result of land acquisition and land

    conflict. Apart from ABF, land is rarely directly owned by the Big 10

    companies. However, vast areas of land are used to produce the crops that

    these companies buy. All those involved in producing and sourcing crops

    must play their role in ensuring that land rights are respected, disputes are

    resolved fairly, and communities benefit from investment.

    This is not only a moral responsibility. Both consumers and international

    standards initiatives have made plain the expectation that companies shouldtake responsibility for what happens in their supply chains, wherever they

    may be in the world. Company reputations and sales are on the line when

    consumers learn of wrongdoing along the supply chain,92 with as much as

    two-thirds of a companys market value being attributable to its public

    reputation.93

    The UNs Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights94 are clear in

    this respect. Business enterprises have responsibilities across the entire

    supply chain, and should adopt policies and processes to identify and

    manage risks, engage with relevant suppliers and government bodies, and

    establish mechanisms for redress. The UN principles are designed to coverall human rights, including those associated with large-scale land

    acquisitions, such as rights to housing, livelihoods, property, culture, and

    health.95 Other relevant global norms include the Voluntary Guidelines on the

    Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land (VGGT),96 which require

    companies to respect human rights and legitimate tenure rights, and the

    International Finance Corporation (IFC)s performance standards, both of

    which include FPIC.97

    Land conflict risks can significantly impact businesses too. Displacement,

    conflict, violence, and loss of life are very serious issues, and an association

    with any of these is rightlyincredibly damaging to a companys

    reputation.

    Conflicts are often long-lasting and can seriously affect the operations of

    companies that directly source natural resources. The mining sector, for

    example, has been plagued by land-related conflicts that can threaten future

    investments.98 The agricultural sector faces similar threats, which can

    ultimately affect a company's financial stability as a result of losses and

    uncertainty arising from delayed operations and forced withdrawals.99 This in

    turn poses a risk to the Big 10's security of supply, given that supply chains

    are extremely vulnerable to disruption and discontinuity, with events in one

    part of the chain often having unpredictable knock-on effects. For ABF, with

    its own land holdings in high-risk areas including Africa, the potential impacts

    are even greater.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    15/24

    15

    THE BIG 10 CAN MOBILIZE OTHERS

    As global brands, major employers, and important buyers of commodities,

    the Big 10 have considerable influence. A clear message of zero tolerance

    for land grabs, enforced through changes in policy and practice, will make a

    difference.

    Land conflicts are long-running issues with complicated roots in poor

    governance, uncertain land tenure, and deeply entrenched inequalities. The

    problem of land conflicts in production and supply chains will not be resolved

    overnight or by one or two actors alone. Beyond the Big 10, powerful

    intermediaries, including global trading giants such as Cargill, ADM, Bunge,

    and Louis Dreyfus, have an even more direct responsibility for land rights in

    their supply chains. They source commodities directly and sometimes even

    own plantations.

    The ultimate responsibility for land issues, however, lies with governments.

    Governments have the responsibility to ensure that their citizens basichuman rights are protected, and have a particular duty to support the least

    powerful members of society.

    Collectively, the Big 10 have considerable influence with both traders and

    governments, and the convening power to bring actors together to

    collaboratively tackle pressing challenges around land rights.

    Signs of leadership are already emerging as companies recognize the risk

    that land conflicts and land rights violations represent to their operations and

    reputations. As Mark Bowman, managing director of brewing company SAB

    Miller Africa, one of Coca-Colas largest bottlers, put it, Land purchaseswhich ignore the interests of local communities and the local landscapes are

    both morally wrong and commercially short-sighted. Bowman argues that

    clear-cut land cases fuel opposition to all outside investment.100

    Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca-Cola, has said, we recognize that the success

    and sustainability of our business is inextricably linked to the success and

    sustainability of the communities in which we operate. The strength of our

    brands is directly related to our social license to operate, which we must earn

    daily by keeping our promises to our customers, consumers, associates,

    investors, communities, and partners.101

    The food industry has already made collective efforts to tackle issues such

    as deforestation and child labour. In 2010, for example, the Consumer

    Goods Forum (CGF) and its 400+ members food manufacturers and

    retailers, including most of the Big 10 announced that they would work

    together to achieve zero net deforestation by 2020.102 While significant

    action to implement the commitment is still needed, it represents an

    important step towards a collective solution.

    There are also examples of leadership from other sectors. In the 1990s

    sportswear producer Nike, among others, faced criticism over underpaid

    workers, the use of child labour, and poor working conditions in the factoriesit sourced from.103 After initially denying responsibility and facing a

    backlash as a result104 the company finally took action to inspect factories

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    16/24

    16

    and tackle problems. In 2005 it made its list of suppliers105 open to the

    public. This shift in attitude, from passing the buck to becoming transparent

    and hands-on in order to find solutions, sent an important message to

    customers and suppliers that Nike took the issues seriously.

    Individual corporate responsibility actions like these are a vital first step, and

    Oxfam is looking for a similar shift in culture and transparency from the Big

    10. However, the horrific collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory inBangladesh in April 2013, which killed more than 1,000 people, also

    demonstrates the limits of voluntary efforts by individual companies.

    Pervasive issues require a collective response backed up by binding

    measures across industry and government.

    Following the Rana Plaza disaster, ABF, which also owns clothing retail

    chain Primark, responded with policy changes106 and was the first to publicly

    commit to paying compensation. It also signed up, with more than 80 other

    brands, to a legally binding building safety agreement backed by trade

    unions and the Bangladeshi government. This example illustrates how

    companies like ABF, as well as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the other Big 10

    companies, could also show leadership and work with others to deliver

    solutions to the complex challenges posed by land rights issues.

    5 CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

    The increasing pressure on land, driven partly by the expansion of land-

    intensive crops such as sugar, too often comes at the expense of vulnerablewomen and men. Communities have lost their homes, farms, and food

    security as a result. While big financial investors, trading companies, and

    governments must act to stop these abuses, the Big 10 must also play their

    part. However, the Behind the Brands scorecard shows that the Big 10

    currently lack sufficient awareness, commitments, and policies to detect and

    address land issues and conflicts in their supply chains.

    At the most basic level, Oxfam is calling on individual companies to

    understand their supply chains and to take action to solve problems. This

    means due diligence, greater disclosure, and collective action with traders,

    other supply chain actors, and with governments. Actions need to lead toconcrete and binding solutions that engage and involve affected

    communities in decision making and ensure that they benefit from

    development, rather than being further marginalized.

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Know and show risks related to land issues107

    1. Uncover and disclose risks to and impacts on communities from

    land issues through credible and relevant impact assessments,108 with

    the full participation of affected communities.

    2. Disclose from where and from whom the company sources sugar,palm oil, and soy commodities.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    17/24

    17

    Commit to zero tolerance for land grabbing

    Establish and implement a credible zero tolerance policy on land

    grabbing and include it in supplier codes of conduct.

    3. Commit, as a means to improve policy and practice,109 to sector-specific

    production standards in sugar, palm oil, and soy110 aimed at helping to

    improve sustainability by 2020.

    Box 7: Zero tolerance for land grabbing

    A policy of zero tolerance for land grabbing should:

    1. Acknowledge company responsibility for land rights violations involving the

    company or its suppliers (down to the primary producer);

    2. Commit, through a company-wide policy, to respect all land rights of

    communities impacted by the companys or suppliers operations, and

    include this policy in codes of conduct for all suppliers, requiring:

    Respect for human rights with special attention to land rights of communitiesimpacted, or potentially impacted, by the operations of the company or its

    suppliers;

    Fair negotiations on land transfers;

    Adherence to the principle of FPIC in the operations of the company and its

    suppliers;

    Transparency of contracts and disclosure to affected communities of any

    concession agreements or operation permits;

    Fair resolution of any disputes involving land use or ownership rights, via

    company grievance mechanisms, third party ombudsmen, or other

    processes;

    Refraining from co-operating with any illegitimate use of eminent domain bya host government to acquire farmland;

    Avoiding production models which involve the transfer of land rights

    (including land under customary tenure) away from small-scale food

    producers.

    Advocate for governments and traders to tackle landgrabbing and support responsible agriculturalinvestments

    4. Publicly advocate that governments and traders111 commit to andimplement responsible agricultural investment, and commit to the

    Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,

    which includes protecting and promoting all land rights of affected

    communities.

    5. Mobilize suppliers and peers to adopt zero-tolerance policies, join

    sector-specific initiatives to improve sustainability, and take on active

    roles within initiatives to increase their impact and create a race to the

    top.

  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    18/24

    18

    NOTES

    All web links given here were accessed in August 2013, unless otherwise stated.

    1 This data includes only transnational deals which have been concluded, based on the Land Matrix, an

    online database of land deals involving more than 200 hectares, where land has shifted from smallholderproduction, local community use, or ecosystem service provision to commercial use. The data isaccurate as of 13 August 2013; however, the Land Matrix is constantly updated as new informationbecomes available. See: http://landmatrix.org/

    2 Oxfam has been campaigning on these issues. See: http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/landgrabs

    3 For more information, seehttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/andhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en.

    4 Oxfam (2013) Behind the Brands: Food justice and the Big 10 food and beverage companies, Oxford:Oxfam International, available at http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/behind-brands

    5 First published in February 2013, the scorecard is regularly updated to reflect progress.http://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecard

    6 The number of reported land deals by foreign investors in agriculture in the global South increased fromapproximately 35 in mid-2008 to 105 in mid-2009, an increase of approximately 200 per cent. See Figure1, p.6, in W. Anseeuw et al. (2012) Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South.Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix Database, Bern, Montpellier, and Hamburg: CDE, CIRAD,

    and GIGA. See: http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf7 Growth originating in agriculture, in particular the smallholder sector, is at least twice as effective in

    benefiting the poorest people as growth originating in non-agricultural sectors. FAO (2010) How to Feedthe World, p.2. See also H.J. Chang (2009) Rethinking public policy in agriculture: lessons from history,distant and recent, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36:3, July 2009, pp.477515.

    8 Oxfam (2011) Land and Power: The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land,Oxford: Oxfam, available at http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/land-and-power

    9 For example, for a detailed analysis of how environmental and socio-economic risks associated with thelarge-scale production of liquid biofuels in developing countries affect men and women differently, see A.Rossi and Y. Lambrou (2008) Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuel production: Minimizing theRisks to Maximize the Opportunities, Rome: FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdf

    10 N. Kachingwe (2012) From Under Their Feet: A think piece on the gender dimensions of land grabs inAfrica, ActionAid.http://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africa

    11 This data includes only deals that have been concluded, based on the Land Matrix. The data ontransnational deals is accurate as of 13 August 2013, and on domestic deals as of 5 September 2013.See:http://landmatrix.org/

    12 Based on concluded deals by transnational investors. Data is accurate as of 13 August 2013.http://landmatrix.org/

    13 W. Anseeuw, L. Alden Wily, L. Cotula, and M. Taylor (2011) Land Rights and the Rush for Land:Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project, Rome: International LandCoalition (ILC); and Oxfam (2013) Poor Governance, Good Business: How land investors targetcountries with weak governance, Oxford: Oxfam.

    14 See the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)s 2012 Global Hunger Index forclassification of countries by level of hunger.http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib70.pdf

    15 Based on concluded deals by transnational investors. Data as of 28 August 2013.http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/web-transnational-deals/

    16 Based on concluded deals by transnational investors. Data as of 28 August 2013. Note that as the LandMatrix figures include only reported deals, the high number of deals listed may also reflect greatertransparency in Cambodia.http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/global-map-investments/

    17 While there is a common perception that most land deals are driven by governments in China and theMiddle East, research suggests that far more deals involve European and American companies. E.Berger (2013) Land grab realities, perceptions vary markedly researcher, Thompson ReutersFoundation.http://www.trust.org/item/20130717110834-egy5a/?source=shtw

    18 Large-scale land acquisitions can be defined as the acquisition of any tract of land larger than 200 ha, ortwice the median land-holding, according to the national context. The figure of 200 ha comes from ILCsdefinition of large-scale.

    19 ILC (2011) Tirana Declaration: Securing Land Access for the Poor in Times of Intensified NaturalResources Competition, Rome: International Land Coalition.http://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declaration

    20 The commodities associated with the greatest number of concluded land deals, according to the LandMatrix, are palm oil (205), rubber (120), jatropha (103), corn or maize (95), sugar cane (90), and soy

    (75). Data accurate as of 28 August 2013.http://landmatrix.org

    21 Based on FAO crop production figures for soybeans, sugar cane, oil palm fruit, and sugar beet for 2012.http://faostat.fao.org/

    http://landmatrix.org/http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/landgrabshttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/http://www.behindthebrands.org/enhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/enhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/enhttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/behind-brandshttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdfhttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/land-and-powerftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdfftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdfftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdfhttp://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africahttp://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africahttp://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africahttp://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africahttp://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib70.pdfhttp://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib70.pdfhttp://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib70.pdfhttp://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/web-transnational-deals/http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/web-transnational-deals/http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/global-map-investments/http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/global-map-investments/http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/global-map-investments/http://www.trust.org/item/20130717110834-egy5a/?source=shtwhttp://www.trust.org/item/20130717110834-egy5a/?source=shtwhttp://www.trust.org/item/20130717110834-egy5a/?source=shtwhttp://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declarationhttp://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declarationhttp://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declarationhttp://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://faostat.fao.org/http://faostat.fao.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declarationhttp://www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declarationhttp://www.trust.org/item/20130717110834-egy5a/?source=shtwhttp://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/global-map-investments/http://landmatrix.org/get-the-idea/web-transnational-deals/http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib70.pdfhttp://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africahttp://www.actionaid.org/publications/under-their-feet-think-piece-gender-dimensions-land-grabs-africaftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdfhttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/land-and-powerhttp://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdfhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/behind-brandshttp://www.behindthebrands.org/enhttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/landgrabshttp://landmatrix.org/
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    19/24

    19

    22 This data includes deals that have been concluded, based on the Land Matrix, for oil palm, soya beans,and sugar (both sugar cane and sugar beet). The data is accurate as of 28 August 2013. See:http://landmatrix.org/

    23 Food manufacturers are estimated to account for approximately 51 per cent of total sugar production,biofuels for 24 per cent, grocery wholesalers for 18 per cent, and other food uses for 7 per cent.IBISWorld (2012) Global Sugar Manufacturing, IBISWorld Industry Report C1115-GL, p.15.

    24 This figure is based on FAO crop production figures for 2012 and includes 26m ha of sugar cane and 5mha of sugar beet. Sugar cane is a much more important crop globally, and has been more commonly

    linked to large-scale land acquisitions than sugar beet. Sugar beet accounts for approximately 20 percent of global sugar production, and is linked to at least one large-scale land deal in Russia.http://faostat.fao.org/ and http://landmatrix.org

    25 This data includes deals that have been concluded, based on the Land Matrix, for sugar (both sugarcane and sugar beet). The data is accurate as of 28 August 2013. See: http://landmatrix.org/

    26 Based on FAO crop production figures for 2012, 107m ha of land are used for producing soybeans.http://faostat.fao.org/

    27 Soy is, however, an indirect input for the Big 10 through its main use as an animal feed in meat and dairyproduction. This accounts for 83 per cent of all soy produced, compared with 16 per cent for other edibleproducts and 1 per cent for industrial uses, including biofuels. S. Murphy, D. Birch, and J. Clapp (2012)Cereal Secrets: The world's largest grain traders and global agriculture, Oxford: Oxfam.

    28 While the relative importance of sweeteners over sugar has increased during this period, sugars stillrepresent 89 per cent of consumption. Global sugar and sweetener consumption in 1961 was59,985,002 tonnes, of which 96 per cent was sugars. In 2009 sugar and sweetener consumption was156,323,836 tonnes, of which 89 per cent was sugars. Source: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/FB/FB/E

    29 B. Lee, F. Preston, J. Kooroshy, R. Bailey, and G. Lahn (2012) Resources Futures, London: ChathamHouse, p.14.

    30 The percentage of sugar production used for food includes sugar for manufacturing and sugar for directsale to wholesalers (i.e. for consumption); on the percentage of soy production used for food, see S.Murphy et al. (2012) op. cit.; on the percentage of palm oil production used for food, see:http://www.thefinancialist.com/where-the-palm-trees-grow/

    31 Koh Kong Sugar Plantation Ltd with 8657.24 hectare, and Koh Kong Sugar Industries Ltd with 9400.08hectares

    32 CLEC (no date) Business and Human Rights in ASEAN: The Implications of the Koh Kong SugarPlantation and Factory Case in Cambodia for Due Diligence and Remedies, Community LegalEducation Center.http://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_Koh%20Kong%20ASEAN%20Case%20Study%202013%20-%20ENG1374035991.pdf

    33 The families do not have official title to the land a situation common in rural areas of Cambodia due tothe lack of regularisation of land titles since the Khmer Rouge regime. The government is now seeking torectify the situation where many communities who have lived on and invested in their land do not havesecure title. A Cambodian Land Law passed in 2001 suggests that any person who enjoyed peaceful,uncontested possession of land but not state public landfor at least five years prior to the lawspromulgation has the right to request a definitive title of ownership. The 200 families who are continuingtheir struggle have documents to show that they have all lived in the area and farmed the land prior to1999, and all of those whom Oxfam interviewed mentioned the fact that they had invested in theclearance of forest land, which would make them eligible to claim official ownership.

    34 Many of the families previously reared cows and buffalo as many as 1520 animals for some familiesbut now that the animals lack grazing land, they stray onto the plantation. The families claim that somelivestock straying onto plantation land have been shot and others have been confiscated by companyauthorities and released only on payment of a fee. Some families report receiving a small amount ofcompensation for buffalo that have been shot, but far below market rates.

    35 S. Starling (2013) Tate & Lyle Sugars slams Guardian over Cambodian sugar sourcing allegations,

    Food Navigator, 12 July 2013.http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardian-over-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegations

    36 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (2013) Cambodia Clean Sugar" campaign companyresponses and non-responses. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012

    37 In a meeting between Oxfam and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on Friday 13September 2013

    38 In addition to supplying the food manufacturing industry, American Sugar Holdings owns consumerbrands such as Domino Sugar and Tate & Lyle Sugar. http://www.asr-group.com/about-us/our-world/

    39 S. Starling (2013) Tate & Lyle Sugars slams Guardian over Cambodian sugar sourcing allegations', op.cit. The company has also told Oxfam that currently it has no plans to receive shipments of sugar fromCambodia in future.

    40 Sugaronline (2013) Cambodia: Tate & Lyle defends land deal', 17 April 2013.http://www.sugaronline.com/news/website_contents/view/1211908.

    41 Specifically, the case has been filed against Tate & Lyle Industries, which is a subsidiary of Tate & Lyleplc, as well as Tate & Lyle Sugars.

    http://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://faostat.fao.org/%20and%20http:/landmatrix.orghttp://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://faostat.fao.org/http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/FB/FB/Ehttp://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/FB/FB/Ehttp://www.thefinancialist.com/where-the-palm-trees-grow/http://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_KohKongASEANCaseStudy2013-ENG1374035991.pdfhttp://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_KohKongASEANCaseStudy2013-ENG1374035991.pdfhttp://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_KohKongASEANCaseStudy2013-ENG1374035991.pdfhttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.asr-group.com/about-us/our-world/http://www.sugaronline.com/news/website_contents/view/1211908http://www.sugaronline.com/news/website_contents/view/1211908http://www.asr-group.com/about-us/our-world/http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/CambodiaCleanSugar2012http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Tate-Lyle-Sugars-slams-Guardianover-Cambodian-sugar-sourcing-allegationshttp://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_KohKongASEANCaseStudy2013-ENG1374035991.pdfhttp://www.clec.org.kh/web/images/Resources/Res_KohKongASEANCaseStudy2013-ENG1374035991.pdfhttp://www.thefinancialist.com/where-the-palm-trees-grow/http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/FB/FB/Ehttp://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/FB/FB/Ehttp://faostat.fao.org/http://landmatrix.org/http://faostat.fao.org/%20and%20http:/landmatrix.orghttp://landmatrix.org/
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    20/24

    20

    42 For Tate & Lyles perspective on the lawsuit, see: Sugaronline (2013) Cambodia: Tate & Lyle defendsland deal', 17 April 2013, op. cit.

    43 As confirmed in dialogue with Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, these companies work with bottlers which arefranchisees that manufacture and produce branded products such as Coke and Pepsi. Thesefranchisees are subject to Coca-Cola and PepsiCo supplier guidelines and other contract provisions,which mandate certain sustainability requirements. For the purposes of this report, references to Coca-Cola and to PepsiCo include their franchisees.

    44 Formore information, see also C. Le Coz (2013) The Grains of Wrath, Southeast Asia Globe Magazine;

    and Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (2013) Cambodia Clean Sugar" campaign company responses and non-responses', op. cit.

    45 LMC International quoted in Bunge (2010) Sugar & Bioenergy Overview, presentation for investors.http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130024/investorday2010/BenPearcy.pdf. Note that inBrazil most sugar mills produce ethanol as well as sugar for food, and can often choose whether toproduce sugar or ethanol based on factors such as current prices.

    46 Based on latest FAO crop production and arable land figures for Brazil. http://faostat.fao.org/

    47 See, for example, CIMI (2012) Violncia contra os povos indgenas no Brasil 2011.http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/CNBB/Relat.pdf

    48 Conflicts in these three states accounted for 20 per cent of all conflicts recorded in Brazil in 2012: 229 ofa total 1,067 events. Based on information from Unica (using IBGE data) and the Pastoral LandCommission. From an unpublished report prepared for Oxfam by Reprter Brasil.

    49 Descendants of slaves who escaped and established communities in the Brazilian countryside over thecenturies.

    50 Of 58 land conflicts documented in Mato Grosso do Sul in 2012, only four did not involve indigenouscommunities. From an unpublished report prepared for Oxfam by Reprter Brasil, based on informationfrom FUNAI, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), and the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT). In 2012 therewere 567 cases of violence and 37 killings perpetrated against indigenous people in the state. CIMI(2012) Violncia contra os povos indgenas no Brasil 2011, op. cit.

    51 Based on satellite monitoring by INPE, Brazil's National Institute for Space Research. Data available at:http://www.dsr.inpe.br/laf/canasat/tabelas.html

    52 In addition to Monteverde, the other mill is the San Fernando sugar mill, owned by Agropecuria JB(Grupo Bumlai) and Grupo Bertin.

    53 V. Glass (no date), 'Em Terras Alheias: A produo de soja e cana em reas Guarani no Mato Grossodo Sul, So Paulo: Reprter Brasil.http://reporterbrasil.org.br/documentos/emterrasalheias.pdf

    54 Farmers have been accused of shooting into the air to intimidate people, as well as sending bulldozersand other agricultural machinery to work on the land, as though it was uninhabited. M.H. Ferreira Limaand V.M. Bezera Guimares (no date) Clean Biofuels and the Guarani Indians of Mato Grosso do Sul:

    Human Costs and Violation of Rights.

    55 Portaria MJ/GM N 499, April 2011.

    56 Bunge's response can be found at:http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jump. After pressure from the State Prosecution Office(MPE), the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF), and the Federal Labour Prosecution Office (MPT), theother mill sourcing from the Jatayvary land, San Fernando, signed a commitment promising not topurchase or promote the planting of sugar cane in land traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples.

    57 Based on Oxfam interview with Federal Prosecutor Marco Antonio Delfino de Almeida.

    58 V. Glass (no date), 'Em Terras Alheias, op. cit.

    59 Bunge (2012) Sugar & Bioenergy Overview, presentation for investors.http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

    60 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/themes/sustainability/sugar/

    61S. Bosley (2013) Sugar, not fat, exposed as deadly villain in obesity epidemic,

    Guardian, 20 March2013. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemic; and A. Soosm(2013) Sugar and obesity, Environmental News Network, 18 January.http://www.enn.com/enn_original_news/article/45484

    62 Danone discloses that it purchases less than 0.02 per cent of world sugar production, mainly from Braziland Mexico. The company directly purchases 400kt of sugar worldwide, 190kt of sugar cane, 110kt fromBrazil and Mexico, and an estimated 70kt is indirectly purchased for animal feed (from Brazil).http://www.danone.com/images/pdf/danone_forest_footprint_policy_en.pdf

    63 Unilever discloses that its purchases account for 0.26 per cent of the global sugar cane market.http://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013/Unileversourcesoverthirdofagriculturalrawmaterials.aspx

    64 http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/stakeholder-engagement#TCCC. Due to the lack oftransparency, the actual amount of sugar purchased by Coca-Cola has not been confirmed.

    65 Although there has been an increasing trend of blending high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with sugar toreduce total sweetener costs in the US, as a result of US government incentives and subsidies around

    corn, sucrose (sugar) is the main sweetener in soft drinks in the rest of world. A percentage of soft drinkssold globally are low-calorie products using alternative (largely non-sugar) sweeteners; however, thenon-diet products still have a larger market share. Coca-Cola Company 10-K submission to the

    http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130024/investorday2010/BenPearcy.pdfhttp://faostat.fao.org/http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/CNBB/Relat.pdfhttp://www.cimi.org.br/pub/CNBB/Relat.pdfhttp://www.dsr.inpe.br/laf/canasat/tabelas.htmlhttp://reporterbrasil.org.br/documentos/emterrasalheias.pdfhttp://reporterbrasil.org.br/documentos/emterrasalheias.pdfhttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/themes/sustainability/sugar/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/themes/sustainability/sugar/http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemichttp://www.enn.com/enn_original_news/article/45484http://www.danone.com/images/pdf/danone_forest_footprint_policy_en.pdfhttp://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013/Unileversourcesoverthirdofagriculturalrawmaterials.aspxhttp://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013/Unileversourcesoverthirdofagriculturalrawmaterials.aspxhttp://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/stakeholder-engagement#TCCChttp://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/stakeholder-engagement#TCCChttp://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/stakeholder-engagement#TCCChttp://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013/Unileversourcesoverthirdofagriculturalrawmaterials.aspxhttp://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013/Unileversourcesoverthirdofagriculturalrawmaterials.aspxhttp://www.danone.com/images/pdf/danone_forest_footprint_policy_en.pdfhttp://www.enn.com/enn_original_news/article/45484http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemichttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/themes/sustainability/sugar/http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDgwMTc3fENoaWxkSUQ9NTEzOTI1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1020853/jumphttp://reporterbrasil.org.br/documentos/emterrasalheias.pdfhttp://www.dsr.inpe.br/laf/canasat/tabelas.htmlhttp://www.cimi.org.br/pub/CNBB/Relat.pdfhttp://faostat.fao.org/http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130024/investorday2010/BenPearcy.pdf
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    21/24

    21

    Securities and Exchange Commission (2012), p.13; and IBISWorld (2013) Global Soft Drink & BottledWater Manufacturing, IBISWorld Industry Report C1124-GL, P25.

    66 Ibid. p.25. PepsiCo states that it purchases less than 1 per cent of the words sugar for the parentcompany, but could not confirm quantities of sugar purchased for its products via bottlers/franchisees.

    67 The world's largest sugar company is Sdzucker AG, which had a market share of 6.1 per cent in 2012.ABFs market share in 2012 was 4.3 per cent. IBISWorld (2012) Global Sugar Manufacturing,IBISWorld Industry Report C1115-GL, op. cit.

    68 This includes 1.8m tonnes produced by Illovo Sugar and 400,000 tonnes produced by Azucarera, as well

    as a portion of the sugar ABF produces in China. Associated British Foods (2012) A Journey ThroughOur Business: Annual Report and Accounts, p.17.

    69 Oakland Institute (2011) Understanding Investment Deals in Africa, Country Report: Zambia;http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/malian-farmers-want-their-land-back/; andhttp://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/5578. See also: http://landmatrix.org/get-the-detail/by-investor-name/1225/?order_by=&starts_with=S. ABF disputes the facts of these reports and maintains that it hasrespected land rights.

    70 This includes 1m tonnes produced by British Sugar and 400,000 tonnes produced by Azucarera, as wellas a portion of the sugar ABF produces in China. Associated British Foods (2012) A Journey ThroughOur Business:Annual Report and Accounts, op. cit.

    71 Usina Trapiche was originally a family-owned company, founded in 1887. In 1997, it was acquired by theprivately held Serra Grande Group. Trapiche has 28,500 ha of land used for its sugar cane plantations.

    72 L. Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative for Whom? Sugarcane ethanol production and rurallivelihoods in Northeast Brazil, Washington DC: American University.

    73 State lands generally come to be used by traditional people such as the islanders of Sirinham throughoccupation, or regime de ocupaao. In general, the state recognises whoever occupies the land ashaving the right to live there. According to the families supporters, the state had recognised the right ofthe islanders to live in the Sirinham estuary since they began to occupy the area around 1914, giventhat their subsistence lifestyle did little harm to the ecosystem, and by providing sustenance for so manypeople this public land was viewed as serving an important social function. L. Schneider (2010) ASweeter Alternative for Whom?, op. cit.

    74 Trapiche is said to have first asked the state for control over the estuary and islands by entering into anaforamento as early as 1898, 16 years before the fishing families occupied the land. An aforamentogrants a company the right to use public land for a ten-year period with certain conditions, including co-existence with surrounding communities and meeting environmental standards. Trapiche also requestedan aforamento in the early 1980s, at which time the state refused, deciding in favour of the islanders. L.Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative for Whom?, op. cit.

    75 Based on Oxfam interviews with the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) and other supporters of theislanders. On the CPT website there is additional information about the conflict, along with testimonies of

    the affected community. See:http://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinham.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQ; and also L. Schneider (2010)A Sweeter Alternative for Whom?, op. cit.

    76 According to the CPT, new conflicts happened on 31 May and 6 June 2012, involving 53 families. Basedon Oxfam interview with Jose Bernardino de Lima; and CPT, op. cit.

    77 Pastoral Land Commission (2012) Mesmo multada por diversos crimes ambientais, Usina Trapicherecebe prmio da Assembleia Legislativa de PE.http://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-prmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight= YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQ

    78 L. Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative for Whom?, op. cit.

    79 Their current homes are on a steep hillside, and they must walk down a sharply inclined dirt path toreach the city centre, and from there make their way to the wharf and then paddle for nearly two hours to

    the estuary to fish. The islanders now depend much more on the meagre income they earn each week inthe market to buy foodstuffs such as cassava, fruit, and fish, which previously they were able to providefor themselves. L. Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative for Whom?, op. cit.

    80 Based on Oxfam interview with the Pastoral Land Commission. See also Amnesty International video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMzIshWJgOw;and L. Schneider (2010) A Sweeter Alternative forWhom?, op. cit.

    81 This includes products directly produced by these companies and branded products such as Coke andPepsi which may be produced by the company or their franchisees. See endnote 41 for moreinformation.

    82 http://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecard

    83 Transparency on sourcing of these (and other major agricultural commodities) is captured in the Behindthe Brands Scorecard as part of the Transparency indicators, rather than the Land indicators. However,the indicators are highly interconnected as the lack of transparency and potentially the lack of sufficientknowledge by companies around their agricultural sourcing is a major barrier to the management ofsupply chain risks and impacts.

    84 This information was provided by Bonsucro in conversation with Oxfam.

    85 http://bonsucro.com/site/in-numbers/

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/malian-farmers-want-their-land-back/http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/5578http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/5578http://landmatrix.org/get-the-detail/by-investor-name/1225/?order_by=&starts_with=Shttp://landmatrix.org/get-the-detail/by-investor-name/1225/?order_by=&starts_with=Shttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMzIshWJgOwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMzIshWJgOwhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://bonsucro.com/site/in-numbers/http://bonsucro.com/site/in-numbers/http://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMzIshWJgOwhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3613-mesmomultada-por-diversos-crimes-ambientais,-usina-trapiche-recebe-pr%C3%AAmio-daassembleia-legislativa-de-pe.html?highlight=%20YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiJ0cmFwaWNoZSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://www.cptne2.org.br/index.php/publicacoes/noticias/noticias/55-pe/3397-usina-trapiche-incendeiabarracas-de-pescadores-tradicionais-nas-ilhas-de-sirinha%C3%A9m.html?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMDoic2lyaW5oYcOpbSI7fQhttp://landmatrix.org/get-the-detail/by-investor-name/1225/?order_by=&starts_with=Shttp://landmatrix.org/get-the-detail/by-investor-name/1225/?order_by=&starts_with=Shttp://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/5578http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/malian-farmers-want-their-land-back/
  • 7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

    22/24

    22

    86 Tate & Lyle Sugars has been suspended from the Bonsucro initiative until it fulfils a number of conditionsor reaches a resolution of the dispute to both parties satisfaction. In a response to Oxfam, Tate & LyleSugars said that Bonsucros stated reasons for suspending it did not align with what the company wasasked to do by Bonsucro, that time periods given were not adhered to, and that the companys ability toact on some areas was limited due to the UK Court action. Bonsucro's statement is available at:http://bonsucro.com/site/about/complaints/

    87 Based on Behind the Brands Scorecard ranking. See:http://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecard

    88 Nestl (2013) Nestl General Responsible Sourcing Guidelines for Materials of Agriculture, Forestry,Fishery and Aquaculture Origin.http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-shared-value/responsible-sourcing/nestle-responsible-sourcing-guidelines.pdf

    89 For more information, see Global Witness (2012) Dealing with Disclosure: Improved transparency inlarge land deals, London, Oakland, and Rome: Global Witness, Oakland Institute, and InternationalLand Coalition; and Oxfam Australia (2010) Guide to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, Carlton:Oxfam.

    90 Relevant information includes contracts, impact assessments, proposed benefit sharing, and legalarrangements. This is an ongoing process, since projects take many years to plan and implement, andthe principle applies throughout the process.

    91 Women must be included in consultation and negotiation and must directly benefit from compensationschemes, and mitigation plans must address womens specific needs. J. Bugri and R. King (forthcoming)'Gender Dimensions of Agricultural Investments: Case studies from Ghana, IIED, London; C. Wonani,W. Mbuta, and A. Mkandawire (2012) 'Gender and Equity Implications of Land-Related Investments onLabour and Income Generating Opportunities: Zambia Country Study, draft report, June 2012, quoted in

    B. Vorley, L. Cotula, and M. Chan (2012) Tipping the Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investmentsand markets in favour of small-scale farmers, Oxford: Oxfam.

    92 See, for example, Nielsen (2012) The Global, Socially-Conscious Consumer.

    93 PR Newswire (2012) 'Seventy percent of consumers avoid products if they dislike parent company,Weber Shandwick survey finds.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.html

    94 http://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/Home. See also Oxfam (2013)Business and Human Rights: An Oxfam perspective on the UN Guiding Principles, Oxford: Oxfam.

    95 In the commentary, the UN Principles also discuss the need for states to provide enterprises with greaterclarity on laws governing land tenure and access.

    96 FAO (2012) Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context of National Food Security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

    97 http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1ee7038049a79139b845faa8c6a8312a/PS7_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

    98 See for example, A. Wilson (2012) Perus social conflict is about more than mining, Fraser Forum,Fraser Institute, September/October 2012.

    99 The Munden Project (2012) The Financial Risks of Insecure Land Tenure: An Investment View.

    100 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/land-grabs-africa-mark-bowman/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

    101 http://wwf.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/addressing-global-issues

    102 Nine of the Big 10 are CGF members the exception is ABF.http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/membership.aspx.

    103 R. Locke, T. Kochan, M. Romis, and F. Qin (2007) Beyond corporate codes of conduct: Workorganization and labour standards at Nikes suppliers, International Labour Review, Vol. 146 (2007), No.12.

    104 M. Nisen (2013) How Nike Solved Its Sweatshop Problem, Business Insider.http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5

    105http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/

    106 S. Butler (2013) 'Bangladeshi factory deaths spark action among high-street clothing chains', TheObserver, 23 June 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primark

    107 This and the other specific recommendations in this section have been developed with reference torecognised international norms, particularly the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights(UNGP) and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT).

    108 Assessments should disaggregate impacts on women, since women are often disproportionatelyaffected by land issues.

    109 Joining a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI), or even obtaining certification, does not absolve any

    company of its own individual responsibilities to address issues, and certainly does not, in itself, provideany guarantee of responsible behaviour on a companys part. MSIs merely ensure that companies areinvolved in a multi-stakeholder group that can guide their policy and practice, and can help them stay

    http://bonsucro.com/site/about/complaints/http://bonsucro.com/site/about/complaints/http://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.behindthebrands.org/en/company-scorecardhttp://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-shared-value/responsible-sourcing/nestle-responsible-sourcing-guidelines.pdfhttp://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-shared-value/responsible-sourcing/nestle-responsible-sourcing-guidelines.pdfhttp://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-shared-value/responsible-sourcing/nestle-responsible-sourcing-guidelines.pdfhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.htmlhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.htmlhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.htmlhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.htmlhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seventy-percent-of-consumers-avoid-products-if-they-dislike-parent-company-weber-shandwick-survey-finds-137559523.htmlhttp://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/Homehttp://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdfhttp://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1ee7038049a79139b845faa8c6a8312a/PS7_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPEREShttp://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1ee7038049a79139b845faa8c6a8312a/PS7_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPEREShttp://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1ee7038049a79139b845faa8c6a8312a/PS7_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPEREShttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/land-grabs-africa-mark-bowman/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitterhttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/land-grabs-africa-mark-bowman/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitterhttp://wwf.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/addressing-global-issueshttp://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/membership.aspxhttp://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/membership.aspxhttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primarkhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primarkhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primarkhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/rana-plaza-factory-disaster-bangladesh-primarkhttp://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/membership.aspxhttp://wwf.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/addressing-global-issueshttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/land-grabs-africa-mark-bowman/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitterhttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/land-grabs-africa-mark-bowman/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitterhttp://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1ee